Coria could have challenged Nadal on clay

[Morrissey]

hmm, yeah, i just noticed that. mustve been my internet lag.

sorry, i was addressing another post by nadal_freak.

edit: fixed.

It´s ok. I don´t really see any change in speed at the slams, outside Wimbledon. I won´t even get into the whole height of the ball bouncing thing that he does. Personally, I don´t think Nadal needs to play in hot sunny days to be great.

 

[Clay lover]

While this may be true i seriously wonder what the OP's motives are.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

at you say the AO courts are faster, when most players that played there this year claimed it was actually slower than with rebound ace..

Rebound ace is definitely slower and higher bouncing than Plexicushion. No comparison there.

where is your claim that RG is speeding up? what evidence is there? Grass, i would say hasn't changed for several years, neither has Flushing Meadows, but AO is definitely slowing down..

They sped up the courts in 1994 I believe. They used to have heavier balls and water the courts more.

I consider that anyone who hasnt actually watched the match in question (Rome 2005 Finals) has a biased point of view, because it's the best example of how the two play against each other. Any example after that is not as accurate, as coria had a massive falling-off after this tournament, never living up to his potential again.

Monte Carlo 2005 was a better example. Nadal always seems to struggle the most in Rome and Hamburg and Nadal was more rested for Monte Carlo.

but had coria, for example, won the french in '04, he would have the experience of that win, and be less likely (won't say unlikely, because i dont know) to choke in future events, such as the Rome final, where he was up 3-0 and had a brain fart. he stuck with it and brought it to a tiebreak, but the loss of focus serving at 3-0 cost him, literally, the match.

had he the experience of the RG win, he likely would have beaten nadal at both MC and Rome that year, and may have been a top contender for the French for the second year in a row. I admit that nadal in the last two years, and especially this year, has improved to the point that even a Prime Coria would probably be straight setted, i think that in 05 and 06 Coria mightve been the deciding factor between nadal winning or losing RG

Coria had a big game, but lacked the mental aspect, which caused him to falter on key points. Had he the mentality of a champion (wouldve recieved it from the 04 RG win) he would fight through tough sticky situations, and wouldve beaten nadal in the Rome final. So yes, this is all banking on his mental collapse in Roland Garros 2004. That is the shatterpoint of coria's career. it mightve been spectacular. but it was not to be.

Possibly true. We'll never know though.

 

[Breaker]

Monte Carlo 2005 was a better example. Nadal always seems to struggle the most in Rome and Hamburg and Nadal was more rested for Monte Carlo.


.

That explains the bagel Coria gave him in the third set there . Guess he was less rested for that set.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

That explains the bagel Coria gave him in the third set there . Guess he was less rested for that set.

Coria got on fire and Nadal let up. Nadal was not as disciplined in 2005 as he is now. He has totally turned that around though. I got that match on dvd btw. Every game was close and exhausting rallies. The courts in Monte Carlo are much slower than Rome. That explains why bagels and breadsticks were so common there. The serve was like a way to start up the point rather than a weapon.

 

[anointedone]

Coria day in, day out wasn't as consistent as others upstairs (mentally), nor was he the same level of fighter as guys like Muster, Alberto Costa, Mantilla, Corretja, Nadal, and other great clay courters were/are on bad days.

Which just shows why he never would have been a real rival to prime Nadal on clay. To be a real threat to Nadal on clay requires more then just a nice game, but it requires absolutely insane mental and physical strength. Coria has neither of these things, in fact he is quite lacking in both categories.

Only guys who were insane mental and physical beasts like Borg, Vilas, and maybe Muster or Courier for a year or two (only their best one or two years ever, definitely not any other points in time) could be even a remote rival to Nadal on clay.

 

[anointedone]

Coria had a big game

Coria did not have a "big" game. He had a very good and smooth game, but definitely not a big game. His serve, even in his prime, was nowhere near as good as Nadal's (yet even Nadal's serve is excessively criticized by many of the yahoos on here who will probably say Coria had a good serve in his prime). He never attacked weaker serves, his groundstrokes were never overpowering by any means. He came to net less then Nadal, and the only volleys he could ever do well were the finesse ones. He had many fine attributes but he never had anything close to a "big" game. Nadal has a much much bigger game then Coria ever had, in addition to having the best defence the game has seen for atleast 25 years (very bad for Coria in this matchup considering this is his greatest strength too).

 

[BreakPoint]

Yes, Nadal was injured. Look at his feet when the trainer came out. Blisters are not an injury? Ummm. . . .what?! Anything that causes your body pain and makes it difficult to impossible to continue to play is considered an injury. Blisters are essentially like playing on raw skin. Can you imagine trying to play tennis with a few layers of skin missing? Not an appealing notion. With certain blister locations, I can play through. But if they are in key locations on my feet and/or hands, then I can not play.

Just about all pros play with blisters on their feet all the time, especially the ones that play a lot of matches, like Federer. That's why most pros play with their feet all taped up. Have you ever seen what Federer's feet look like when they take the tape off? It's not like playing on raw skin after you tape them up.

 

[BreakPoint]

While this may be true i seriously wonder what the OP's motives are.

No "motive". I just saw what a great clay court player Coria was (he hasn't been around for a while so I had forgotten) in the 2005 Rome final and was keeping up with Nadal throughout the whole match on clay. Not too many people can do that. It's just a shame that Coria disappeared as I think he could have given Nadal a lot of tough matches on clay over the past few years. And as spectators, we would have benefitted from that rivalry.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

No "motive". I just saw what a great clay court player Coria was (he hasn't been around for a while so I had forgotten) in the 2005 Rome final and was keeping up with Nadal throughout the whole match on clay. Not too many people can do that. It's just a shame that Coria disappeared as I think he could have given Nadal a lot of tough matches on clay over the past few years. And as spectators, we would have benefitted from that rivalry.

Nadal had a lot of tight matches in 2005. Coria didn't do anything special that year. At least he didn't do anything more than Fed did. Coria was undersized and lacked power. Not a good combination against the likes of Nadal.

 

[Alexio92]

Nadal had a lot of tight matches in 2005. Coria didn't do anything special that year. At least he didn't do anything more than Fed did. Coria was undersized and lacked power. Not a good combination against the likes of Nadal.

There is also another point you are missing, what if coria had improved since 2005 :-?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

There is also another point you are missing, what if coria had improved since 2005 :-?

Coria's best year overall was 2003. I assumed he was on decline anyways.

 

[BkK_b0y14]

Yes, Nadal was injured. Look at his feet when the trainer came out.

Blisters are not an injury? Ummm. . . .what?! Anything that causes your body pain and makes it difficult to impossible to continue to play is considered an injury. Blisters are essentially like playing on raw skin. Can you imagine trying to play tennis with a few layers of skin missing? Not an appealing notion. With certain blister locations, I can play through. But if they are in key locations on my feet and/or hands, then I can not play.

I will, however, give you that Ferrero played lights-out tennis that day. But against a healthy Rafa, Ferrero is no match. Just look at their head-to-head record: Rafa's up 6-2. And I guaran-damn-tee you that when Rafa faces Ferrero on clay again, Rafa makes JC pay.

If I can play premier level soccer with blood blisters and huge areas of raw skin on my feet for 4+ hours at a tournament (several matches a day), Nadal can survive a 2 hour match.

 

[anointedone]

There is also another point you are missing, what if coria had improved since 2005 :-?

Nadal was already much better then Coria by 2005, so Coria would have had to improve even more then Nadal to be a real rival. One close match in Rome does not make him a real rival to Nadal. Federer gave Coria an even closer match in Rome in 2006, made all the finals on clay vs Nadal unlike Coria in 2005, and he isnt considered a real rival to Nadal on clay. Nadal ended 2005 a big cut above the rest on clay, including Coria who ended the year year as the 3rd best clay courter and nowhere near Nadal despite their one close match.

Coria could have improved of course, but it is unlikely he could have improved as much as Nadal, let alone more then Nadal as he would have had to in order to become a rival to Nadal on clay. Coria was already in his prime in 2005, while Nadal was not in his yet. Guys in their prime can of course improve, and in fact they should if they want to continue to have success, but guys who are not yet in their prime are far more likely to improve even more then ones already in the midst of theirs.

 

[tacou]

I think the premise of his post is based solely off of the close match in Mote Carlo. so yes, Coria COULD challenge Nadal, he did on that day. but could he play Nadal like that every time? and more so, push it just a bit and WIN? I don't think so.

it's the safin syndrome, basically. he COULD challenge anyone, but he never does.

 

[BreakPoint]

Coria's best year overall was 2003. I assumed he was on decline anyways.

Why would you assume Nadal is improving and Coria is declining?

Coria was still quite young. If he had won that French Open in 2004, anything could have happened.

 

[BreakPoint]

Nadal was already much better then Coria by 2005, so Coria would have had to improve even more then Nadal to be a real rival. One close match in Rome does not make him a real rival to Nadal.

They also had a close 4 set match in Monte Carlo that same year, with Coria winnning the 3rd set 6-0.

And if Nadal was already "much better" than Coria in 2005, how did that match in Rome ever get to a 5th set tiebreak which could have gone either way? And Coria was also up 3-0 in the 5th set. If Nadal was "much better" than Coria, he should have beaten him in straight sets like 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. That's what you do to someone when you're "much better" than them.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Why would you assume Nadal is improving and Coria is declining?

Coria was still quite young. If he had won that French Open in 2004, anything could have happened.

Or he could follow the path of Ferrero.

 

[BreakPoint]

Or he could follow the path of Ferrero.

You mean have career sidelined by chicken-pox?

 

[veroniquem]

As always anointedone has the most convincing arguments in this thread. Coria is not in the same league as Nadal. If you can't see that, you're blind!

 

[edmondsm]

Coria would get owned by Nadal. Nadal destroyed Coria in 2006 in MC. The worst beating Nadal ever gave there. lol

Have to agree with this. Coria got his will completely broken by Nadal, just like Federer. If Coria had not gotten injured, the matches against Nadal would have gotten increasingly lopsided until we would see something like what Nadal did to Federer in FO final this year.

 

[saram]

I just watched the incredibe 5-plus hour, 5 set, 2005 Rome Masters final between Nadal and Coria on Tennis Channel for the first time and I had forgotten what a tremendous clay court player Coria was. I think Coria could have posed a major challenge to Nadal on clay over the past few years had he not gone apoplectic after losing the 2004 French Open final that he should have easily won. What would have happened had Coria won that French Open final (he won the first two sets easily and was up in the 3rd set) in 2004? Would he have gained enough confidence to have challenged Nadal at the French in '05 and '06? Would Nadal have won four French Opens in a row had Coria not disappeared into thin air? Very interesting questions to ponder as Coria was without doubt a major threat on clay until his major diappointment at the 2004 French.

Damn, you beat me to the punch, bro. I watched that as well for the first time yesterday. I think the RG loss and this loss you mention in Rome were the two matches that really crushed Coria into the past and off of our television. Had Coria won those to battles-he would still be there today.

In my view...had Coria beaten Gaudio at RG and then Rafa in Rome--he'd be the king of clay and we'd be talking about him today.

 

[edmondsm]

Damn, you beat me to the punch, bro. I watched that as well for the first time yesterday. I think the RG loss and this loss you mention in Rome were the two matches that really crushed Coria into the past and off of our television. Had Coria won those to battles-he would still be there today.

In my view...had Coria beaten Gaudio at RG and then Rafa in Rome--he'd be the king of clay and we'd be talking about him today.

Nah. It would be a different Coria no doubt, but that shoulder was going to give out on him regardless of the outcomes of those matches.

 

[!Tym]

Nah. It would be a different Coria no doubt, but that shoulder was going to give out on him regardless of the outcomes of those matches.

Exactly. Imo, injury is the biggest reason Coria dissapeared, not him being so utterly devastated by two painful losses. He's a tennis player for God's sake, you win some and you LOSE some, but still if you're really a tennis player, you play on.

Him saying that his motivation had flown out the window? That reminds me of Bruguera in his last years when he was befuddled by injury, and went into half-retire, part-time player mode just like Coria and cited not having any motivation anymore. When he finally retired, he just said that he could no longer summon the motivation to keep on coming back from injury anymore, that mentally having to try and do so so often throughout his career had simply just taken its toll on him. As you can see on the seniors tour with guys like him and Rios who ended on similar notes, they can still play and still have a talent for the game, but it's just an enitrely different proposition when you're asking a guy to travel year round and train year round when mentally and physically their bodies no longer want to, are no longer up to it IN SPIRIT.

To me, that sums up Coria of the last few years. It's sad, because he was a joy to watch and as previously alluded to, one of the silikeist movers I've ever seen on a tennis court. This guy more than any other I've seen truly seemed to just GLIDE across the tennis court as if on ice, as if on roller skates. By comparison, guys like Hewitt and Chang were equally great movers in their own right, but they seemed to CHUG if you know what I mean. With Coria, it was like you felt no sweat, just liquid. "That's wet," as they say.